Re: [lp-wan] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-nbiot-12: (with COMMENT)

Dear Roman,

Sorry for our delay. We want to thank you for your review. We are
publishing version 13 with all the IESG review inputs.

https://github.com/lp-wan/SCHC-NBIoT/blob/master/draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-nbiot-13.md

See our comments below

Ana & Edgar

On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 3:24 AM Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-nbiot-12: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-nbiot/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you to Barry Lieba for the SECDIR review.
>
> Lacking the background on why we are making suggestions to another SDO who
> didn’t solicit our feedback, I share Rob Wilton’s curiosity on why this is
> a
> proposed standard status document.
>
[Ana] Yes, the document has three parts:
- two informational about how 3GPP could use SCHC for their 'internal'
network
- one standard 'end to end' how any application developer must use SCHC
*over* the 3GPP public service (i.e., 3GPP network is fully unaware of SCHC
use)
>
>
> ** Editorial. This document refers to itself as an “I-D” in a number of
> places.
>  When published as an RFC, it will not be an I-D anymore.  Please replace
> “I-D”
> with document or something similar to save future search-and-replace for
> the
> RFC Editor.
>
[Ana] Done, replaced with document

>
> ** Section 5.2.1.  Typo. s/section Section 5.1/Section 5.1/.  Multiple
> places.
>
[Ana] Ok, done

>
> ** Section 5.4.2.
>    Also, the ACK-on-Error mode COULD be desirable to keep track of all
>    the SCHC packets delivered.
>
> “COULD” is being used like it is an RFC2119 key word.  It is not.  Should
> this
> an “SHOULD”?
>
[Ana] Non, I have corrected the capitals to minuscule.

>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lp-wan mailing list
> lp-wan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan
>